Asklemmy

Not all knowledge is based on faith. The flaw in this chain comes early on.

Look, I'm a Stoic, I know that my senses and the inputs they give me are flawed and those flaws are out of my control. I know that my mind is flawed and those flaws are out of my control. I also know that they're the only tools I have to perceive the world and I have to do my best with them.

BUT.

Confidence intervals are a thing. It's not a binary between the poles of "I know for certain" and "I don't know at all". We can say, "I am confident, based on multiple observations by myself and the reported observations of others, that the sun will rise tomorrow, water boils at the same temperature adjusting for altitude, and the traits of the parents and grandparents can predict the traits of the offspring via Punnett squares."

The virtue of the scientific method is that the experiments must be repeatable. We don't have to take it on faith. We can repeat variations of the experiment to raise or lower our confidence to acceptable levels.

is all knowledge based on faith

It's based on assumption, not faith. If we can trust our senses, and if things will continue to be as they have been, then the things we are learning have value. As long as you can recognize that everything could in theory end or completely change at any moment, it's not blind belief.

Observation isn't reliable, that's why science depends on falsifiability: I have observed things and drawn conclusions from those observations Here is an experiment that, given a specific outcome, will prove me wrong, please do your best to show that my conclusions do NOT adhere to your observations.

How do you know that you know anything? How do you know you can rely on your senses?

Consistency and predictability. My only access to the world is through my senses, and my ability to navigate that world depends on my ability to understand and predict things in it.

The consistency of that model means it's an amazingly good model of the way the world really is.

"God is real because I see rocks" is a pretty wild take ngl.

Does it matter? Endlessly pontificating about the true nature of reality serves no purpose. If I'm driving and I'm about to hit a tree, reality doesn't give a single fuck if I consider "well maybe the tree isn't really there. How can I truly know?"

Like, I was talking with a guy and he was saying shit about how can we truly know that what I say is the color green is the same as what you see? It just feels mastubatory. It's what words are for. If that guy asks me to go to the store and buy forest green paint from a certain brand and I come back with forest green paint from that brand he's not going to worry about whether or not we see the exact same shade.

I know my universe is at least internally consistent from experience. I think therefore I am after all.

Not all science relies on our senses but it does rely on our interpretation of results which is why we often use meta analysis looking at multiple studies to try to control for as much human bias as possible.

The top comment currently is about null hypothesis, you don't prove your assertion you disprove it under specific measured circumstances, it's really hard to prove the existence of, well anything really, but we can at fairly reliably show we are at minimum sharing a simulation as people can have the same experiences of events.

Half of dozen thiests have asked me this same question pretending to be athiests.

Everything in science is a model. Clockwork that function like the reality and produces similar results, so we can make predictions about the reality, but it's still a model. You can have several of them that function differently, but long as they produce the same results that match reality, all are equally correct.

Your perception of reality is also a model. Produced by your brain using input from your senses. "Construct" for you to live in.

Science is about probing elements that remain consistently same for everyone and using those to build more extensive models. Belief is not a component of any value.

Because anything truly outside of our senses (or ability to measure) is non-falsifiable, so if it can't impact us it's essentially meaningless. If it can impact us then it can be measured and become science.

I don't need to validate my disbelief in a made-up being. Science works. Math works. Good enough.

Firstly, I would just like to refute 'If all knowledge is based on faith, then is science reliable?' because I've seen it been made before to argue [random-bullshit-thing] is worth considering. Science isn't based on knowledge, it's based on experimental results, models, and extrapolation. Actual faith is not based on that.

There's a really good argument to be made that our senses are not telling us the truth, they just tell us what is beneficial to survive and reproduce. However, this is not the case for instruments that measure, say, gravitational waves.

There is a real reality out there, and it's unlikely we can perceive it. Perhaps the universe happened all at once, but our brain processing happens in consecutive slices of reality, so we perceive time.

Personally, my (pessimistic) gut feeling is that we don't exist. How could anything? It's that Prime Mover argument. Because the Big Bang, because multiverse bubbles colliding...

I think the universe might not actually exist, nothing does. But the potential possibilities make it exist relative to the baseline of nothing. Just like when you climb Everest, your total altitude change is 0 because coming down cancels out going up. The universe is just a potential that is cancelled out by something else, so existence remains at 0 in total.

It’s completely impossible to prove, without making any assumptions, that anything other than one’s own mind exists. However, it’s also completely impractical not to assume one’s own perceptions are generally valid (them being invalid is the exception rather than the rule).

Belief in things seen (accepting the validity of perception) is fundamentally different than faith which is the belief in things unseen (equating imagination with perception). The former is necessary to function in the world. The latter is not necessary to function, even if some people derive value from it.

Edit: I probably should have said “a mind at a moment” rather than “one’s own mind”. But perhaps identity is a topic for another day.

I do not think, we can guarantee our senses to sense reality. But what distinguishes science from faith to me, is ultimately a principle known as Occam's Razor.
Essentially, it says: When trying to find an explanation for something, prefer the explanation that requires fewer assumptions.

So, in regards to our senses sensing things, there's two possible explanations:

1. What they sense is real.
2. Or what they sense is some imagination, simulation etc..

And with 2), you have to make the assumption that your entire perception is somehow being imagined/simulated and you presumably have some other form of existence, too. Because well, if you wouldn't exist, why would you be imagining things?

So, on the basis of that, 1) just seems less far-fetched. You're just perceiving what's real.
If we ever find evidence that this isn't actually the case, then of course, we should change our minds, but until then, there's no point in seriously considering 2).

It can be argued that Occam's Razor isn't inherently guaranteed either. My preference for it certainly comes from what I have perceived.
But well, if there's a religion that assumes everything exists in all places all the time, and that every time I lift my finger when typing, there's an invisible coffee table there with Santa, the tooth fairy, Big Foot and a pink space unicorn, I would be down for that religion.

i mostly dont care to check

How do we know the world isn't a simulation created by an omnipotent trickster? How do we know that all memories aren't implants and we're all exactly 30 seconds old?

It takes no faith to accept your perceptions as reality, because what is the difference? If there is evidence that anything is wrong with our senses, then observations will not be internally consistent. If that is the case, then such inconsistencies will be discovered and revealed. But any trickster or simulation capable of perfectly recreating reality is functionally identical to reality.

Each of our subjective realities is informed by our lived experiences, epiphenominalism, but that doesn't mean an objective reality doesn't exist.

One's faith in made up bullshit is not equal in weight to measured reality simply because they're both stored in our minds as concepts.

First of all, sorry for bad english. I found this post from browsing google because of curiosity and suddenly stumbled upon this post. I think I might have the same question albeit with a bit difference in which i wonder if all knowledge is based on faith. I mean how can we so sure about our sense? Have you ever done empirical test to validate your senses? This become even more weird when we include subjective experience. I don't know. Maybe it was just that I found people's answers to these questions interesting.

how do you know your senses are valid and not solipsistic

if I'm the only real person on earth and everyone else is NPCs that means my senses are even more reliable and valid

I think the idea of "truth" and "reality" is being reified here, and by reifying the concept of reality you divorce it from reality. Like, you create this abstract notion of what reality is, you put it on another plane, a kind of Platonic concept of what reality is. And at that point it's no longer reality that you're actually talking about because you've separated the concept of reality from reality.

Reality is what it is and it exists outside the mind since the mind experiences reality, and knowing is an abstracted model of reality. The abstracted model is not reality itself but a model of reality, and that model of reality contains the concept of reality which is what you're talking about here but that concept of reality is not reality.

I think that my senses can be backed up by empirical and reproducible evidence.

If i dont want to burn my hand, I can measure the objects temperature. Even if I don't trust my reasoning and senses, a hot object will still burn me. I could have no senses to perceive the outside world, and I would still be burned by that object.

The reason I know I will get burned is not based on an absolute knowledge of how hot that object is, but that I and others have been burned before. The evidence is reproducible and most everyone agrees that a hot object will burn them.

Solipsism is not disprovable.

It also isn't a framework under which you can do any interesting and widely relevant philosophical thinking, so even if it is the case, proceeding like it's not seems the best strategy unless you just want to sit in a dreamworld alone until it ceases.

It's really simple. We're past the fundational crisis in mathemematics.

Same with the Scientific method

You need to abide by the scientific method and form a hypothesis that is falsifiable. Your's isn't. So we can't tell. But science delivers the goods. So unless you assume knowledge exists, you're kind of in a useless theoretical argument, while I can form a model of the world and build smartphones and rockets with my approach. And have logic and mathematics and computers. So if your incentive is to get anywhere... Science it the way to go.

And as far as I know there is no alternative to the scientific method that's even close.

Things that I've had to come to grips with when I figure out that it was okay to be an atheist.

Human beings are not logical or rational. We can do logic and rationalizations but we are not fundamentally logical or rational creatures.

Its okay to think things and not have some ironclad sentential logically correct argument as to why you think a thing. When a kid is asked by somebody "Why did you do that?" and the kid answers "I don't know" and the person keeps pushing for the kid to have some cause/effect conforming answer, its the person who's wrong not the kid.

I mean, my eyes are shit and getting worse by the year. My brain has had issues remembering certain things and processing human speech into meaning for as long as I've been an adult. I've been in enough situations where I suddenly realize that I have no actual active memory of how I got here and yet the world still functioned. It just became something that I no longer felt any pressure or need to justify. Things can just be (maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right, maybe I'm in some inbetween state) and I still exist.

So is all knowledge based on faith?

Yes.

If all knowledge is based on faith, then is science reliable?

Reliable for what? It might not solve the issue of the objective/subjective gap, but unless you want to live as if you actually are a brain in a jar or whatever there's no denying the scientific method gets results.

If all knowledge is based on faith, then what about ACTUAL faith? Why is it so illogical?

How is "actual" faith different from faith?

Although I agree that knowledge is based on faith, not all faith are equal. That's why testing/defying our current knowledge is the basis of science.

I've been thinking about this also lately. It occurred to me that our sense organs and nervous system are shaped by external reality (both through evolution and individual development). Thus the ways we perceive are determined in some ways by the things we are perceiving.

I mean, a person's senses aren't supposed to be infallible, but I see no utility in elevating baseless conjecture above them. The "brain in a vat" problem is fun and all but it's based on zero positive evidence, just a lack of negative evidence. On the other hand the senses are giving us continuous and reproducible and interactible information about the world around us, which despite its inherent subjectivity can be communicated with other people's perspectives to approach and approximate an objective understanding of things.

Now when you start shifting from abstract to concrete epistemology, things like symbols and language games and power structures and ideology become important facets to examine. What filters and tensions are influencing a person's perspective? What mechanisms might be elevating or silencing their perspective socially?

We can and should be skeptical of our senses, but in a productive or dialectical manner, testing them against reality and other perspectives in efforts to approach a more concrete understanding.

Not sure how Solipsism contradicts atheism or anything else for that matter... I see it more as punting the question. If my mind is the only way for me to know what exists, and my experience is such that atheism is true, then that's the end of the discussion. Not sure why I am arguing with myself on this one. /S

I once tripped hard and believed I died. When I came out from the trip, I still had no evidence I hadn't finished tripping, and am actually still dying as my mind fires its dying circuits in my deathbed.

But that doubt interferes with my ability to live a normal live which I am used to and strive for, so I ignore the doubt, mostly. I check myself with little tests now and then.

Same with other existential doubts in general. If you want some official names of philosophies, Nagel's absurdism, Buddhism, Vedanta, and maybe pragmatism would be applicable. Basically: don't kill yourself with doubt, keep on living with some sensibility in your senses, though keep a curious mind to keep yourself in check now and then.

I just gotta trust myself

I don't. we could be living in a simulation, but acting as if we were isn't going to help me any

I don't claim to know what exists after you die because I don't know and nobody else does either. Until any religion can prove anything or kick tapes I will disregard them all.

Might interest you:

https://iep.utm.edu/witt-epi/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

I know my senses are reliable because the information coming from them follows stable patterns.

I know my senses are valid because the information they provide is successfully processed by the conceptual models in my mind.

I have no absolute knowledge, but I have lots of probabalistic knowledge. I update my priors in response to new evidence, therefore I probably am.